i am a forigner so i am not good at writing.

War on Terrorism

Since the 9/11 attack, the war on terrorism has been the focal point for government. All over the world, people have opinions about war against terrorism. But, no any other nation has concerned more about terrorism than . There are two opposite views by the two writers about terrorism. Noam Chomsky, a leftist intellectual, is against the war and says that Bush administration is using an imperial grand strategy which means that has the right to accept the “preventive war” at will. The opposite view by John O’Sullivan is to focus more on war against terrorism. From the two arguments stated above, The Bush administration should not use “preventive war” strategy by the use of the force to reduce and expected or imaginary threat.

Both sides argue and presented their case in their articles to support their argument. Noam Chomsky, in the article “One Man’s World”, argued that the government should not use their military power for without any good reason. He says, “the use of military force to eliminate an imagined or invented threat, so that even the term preventive is too charitable” (Chomsky 398). He also argues that the leader is free to change the rules at will. For example, the president Bush failed to discover weapons of mass destruction, so to justify his action, he discover some of the equipment that could be used to produce weapons. The other example Chomsky uses is when the president Bush declared that he had won a “victory in a war on terror” by removing an ally of al-Qaeda. This was not important because there wasn’t any evidence that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were together. Finally, he explained that the U.S. government used propaganda so Americans think Saddam Hussein as an immediate threat to the

On the other hand, John O’Sullivan, in the article “Where We Stand: The Situation in , and How to Go Forward”, argued that the Bush administration should focus more on the war against terrorism. He argues that war against terrorism should be the central point for the government. He doesn’t like the way the government is fighting the war, so he gives three reasons on how to fight against terrorism. John O’Sullivan states that “the war is being lost” (403). He says in his article that the needs to increase the number of coalition casualties. He thinks that deaths are in winnable cause and the sooner the Americans realize this, the quicker the terrorist will loose the battle. The other reason he states, “We need more troops on the ground-and that means troops from currently reluctant allies” (O’Sullivan 403). Finally, he says that the U.N. needs to be involved in for the Coalition. More troops in allies will weaken the terrorist from his understandings.

Well, both sides have very strong and completely different arguments. There can be only one solution from the two arguments; one is that the government should stop using military force if there is no good reason for the war. The other is to focus more on to fight war against terrorism. I agree with the Chomsky argument that the government is using their military force to fight against terrorism even though they can prevent the war.

First, the Bush administration invaded Iraq for reasonable belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be a threat to the The government imagined that Iraq could be a threat if they have weapons of mass destruction, so they invaded with a poor reasoning. According to Gregory Thielman, in the article “The Bush Administration top 40 lies about War and Terrorism,” “I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by . This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.” I believe this one of the main reason that is using their military force to invade a country without any reason. Judith Miller states, in the article “Former Terrorism Official Faults Whit House on 9/11”, “'an unnecessary and costly war in that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide.” Unnecessary invasion in Iraq made Islamic community stronger, because those people think the is trying to get their resources or rule them without any reason.

Second, the U.S. wants democracy in Iraq and the . The Bush administration is interfering with the countries and their values. If is country of democracy, that doesn’t mean that other countries have to be like that. Peter Baker, writes in the article “Democracy In Iraq Not a Priority In U.S. Budget”, “While President Bush vows to transform Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, his administration has been scaling back funding for the main organizations trying to carry out his vision by building democratic institutions such as political parties and civil society groups.” The government is wasting both the money and time by interfering with other nations. It will cost a lot of money to promote democracy in .

Third, the war on terrorism has cost billions of dollars for the . The congressional budget office says that wars in Iraq, , and other terror related expenses have reached more than $600 billions since 2001. Lloyd Doggett, a democratic congressman, stats in the article “US War on Terror Could Cost $2.4 Trillion by 2017”, “The truth is that this administration from its original $50 billion estimate on the cost of the war in Iraq right through the estimates being made outside this committee today, consistently low-balls, misstates to the American people the true cost of the dollars, and of course, the true cost in blood that we are paying for this go-it-alone misadventure.” Too much spending in Defense department has heart economy and their people. If the Bush administration had prevented those wars, they could have used that money in other departments to boost our economy up. The dollar is getting weak day by day, because deficit is high compare to other developed nations.

Last, over a thousand soldiers have died by the Bush administration’s war policy on terrorism. As of today, 872 soldiers have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 129 Operation Enduring Freedom. According to Kate Randall in the article “Relatives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq denounce Bush policy”, “Opposition to the war and occupation in is being voiced by the families of a number of US soldiers who have been killed there. Some relatives of the 15 soldiers who died as a result of last Sunday’s missile attack on a Chinook helicopter have openly denounced the Bush administration’s war policy.” Bush administration is responsible for soldiers’ death, because they have an option to prevent this war. It’s not like Iraq is invading and soldiers are needed.

The Bush administration needs to stop this war as soon as possible. If they can stop the war on terrorism, the will save money and can use that money in other departments. If the government decides to use that money and invest in , Unemployment rate will go down. The soldiers’ death toll will significantly go down. One good decision by stepping away from war can make big difference for this country.









i want someone to check my grammer please

i would really appreciate who ever corects my grammer

THANK YOU
You need to be more careful with your tenses. You keep going back and forth between past and present.

I've highlighted a few glaring errors for you.
Anonymous
War on Terrorism

Since the 9/11 attack, the war on terrorism has been the focal point for United States government. All over the world, people have opinions about war against terrorism. But, no any other nation has been more concerned more about terrorism than United States. There are two opposite views by the two writers about terrorism. Noam Chomsky, a leftist intellectual, is against the war and says that Bush administration is using an imperial grand strategy which means that U.S. has the right to accept the “preventive war” at will. The opposite view by John O’Sullivan is to focus more on war against terrorism. From the two arguments stated above, The Bush administration should not use “preventive war” strategy by the use of the force to reduce and expected or imaginary threat.

Both sides argue and presented (tense consistency) their case in their articles to support their argument. Noam Chomsky, in the article “One Man’s World”, argued that the government should not use their military power for without any good reason. He says, “the use of military force to eliminate an imagined or invented threat, so that even the term preventive is too charitable” (Chomsky 398). He also argues that the leader is free to change the rules at will. For example, the president Bush failed to discover weapons of mass destruction, so to justify his action, he discover some of the equipment that could be used to produce weapons. The other example Chomsky uses is when the president Bush declared that he had won a “victory in a war on terror” by removing an ally of al-Qaeda. This was not important because there wasn’t any evidence that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were together. Finally, he explained that the U.S. government used propaganda so Americans think Saddam Hussein as an immediate threat to the U.S.